w IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 801 OF 2025 Between: M. Jyothi Lakshmi, W/o.M. Dharaneswara Reddy, Aged about 44years, Occ Fair price shop dealer, R/o. H.No. 3/42, BC Colony, Laddagiri Village Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District The Collector(CS), Kurnool District, Kurnool The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District The Tahsildhar, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District 1. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3 rd respondent in Rc.DT(LR)/1465/2024, dated 10.12.2024 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1319030 of Laddagiri Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6-A report issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No.1319030 of Laddagiri Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3'“ respondent dated 10.12.2024 pending disposal of the above in Rc.DT(LR)/1465/2024 writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010010242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 801/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER M Jyothi Lakshmi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KNAGAPHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc DT(LR)/1465/2024 dated 10.12.2024 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to shop No.1319030 of Laddagiri Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District basing on the 6A 2 W.P.No.801 of^ report issued by the 4^*^ respondent and in flagrant disregard to law and aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3'" respondent and pass such other order or orders.. " petitioner is as illegal, arbitrary consequently set 2. The case of the briefly The petitioner is appointed as dealer of fair No.1319030 of Laddagiri village, Kodumur has been working without as follows: price shop mandal, Kurnool district and any remark. The local politicians pressurizing the respondents to stali the supply of commodities to do favour to their were in order own persons, due to which, the 3'"' respondent and issued show cause notice by framing one charge there was variation in the conducted panchanama dt.07.12.2024 vide Rc.DT(LR)/1465/2024, dated 10.12.2024 basing on the report of the 4*' respondent that stock. The petitioner submitted explanation on 12.12.2024. On 10.12.2024, the 3'^^ respondent passed cancellation section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, orders under 1955 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while on the report under section 1955 and therefore the impugned I that show cause notice no order of suspension can be passed basing 6A of the Essential Commodities Act proceeding is not valid. He further submitted as well as order of suspension were passed on the same day without giving any opportunity for conducting enquiry. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader written instructions of Tahsildar, Kodumur Mandal Rc.B.193/2024, dated 09.12.2024. He further suspension speaks of both the report under section 6A and also Tahsildar for conducting disciplinary placed on record the J, vide proceedings submitted that the order of proceedings initiated in view of the separate recommendation of the action and therefore the objection 3 BSB,J W.P.No.801 of 2025 taken in this regard is not valid. He further submitted that the show cause notice was issued for the purpose of cancellation of the authorization and it is separate. He further submitted that an order of suspension can be passed basing on the material available in the inspection and is not illegal, as in the present case, huge quantity of variation was found in the stock. In reply, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order of suspension was passed for a definite period and so far no enquiry was held and thereby petitioner is put to hardship and loss. 4. Considering the submissions on both sides, as there is prima facie material to pass order of suspension, this Court does not opine that the impugned order needs interference at this juncture. 5. This Court in Sandraboyina Guravaiav Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others\ 8. 3. At the hearing, Sri. A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur^, in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A.Neelima^, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of 'f2015)3ALD 102 (2015) 2 ALT 465 ^2005(1) ALD 847 " 1996(1) APU 285 4 W.P.No.801 ofl suspension of a dealer can be 90 days and that the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be consequently, if Divisional revoked or set aside. 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench Collector (supra). In that Court has set aside the order of judgment of the Supreme Court in Joint a learned Single Judge of this suspension based on the case in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab"*, by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, if the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. The Division Bench analysed the facts in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. 6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order learned Single Judge to the effect that the order did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation - But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the of the passed by him enquiry. On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra). I respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified that no general proposition could be laid down that in ‘’air 1982 sc 65 I 5 c BSB,. W.P.No.801 of202£ every case, the maximum period of suspension could be days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” only 90 This Court held that an order of suspension cannot be passed for reasonable period an indefinite period. Usually, 90 days would be the for conducting enquiry. 9. in view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^^ respondent to conclude the one month from the date of receipt of this order failing impugned order vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Kurnool Rc.DT{LR)1465/2024 datedlO.12.2024 any further order. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous in this writ petition shall stand closed. enquiry and pass appropriate order within which the Officer, gets vacated without petitions, if any, pending .4 .. / A ^ SRiNIVAS assistant registrar i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1- The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, 2. The Collector(CS), Kurnool District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District • he Tahsildhar, KodumurMandal, Kurnool District 5. One CC to Sri K. Naga Phanindra, Advocate [OPUCJ T TrcD’cr"" . Food and Civil Supplies, Velagapudi, Guntur District Kurnool [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 5^ ANOM^ X 0 7 MAR 2025 ^ . CurreinSecuon ^^LoespATCX^ ORDER WP.No.801 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS